Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 78-26-W - CAMPANELLA - WAIVER78-26-w interurban avenue 56th avenue south 139th street campanella waiver CITY COUNCIL REGULA MEET I NG October 16, 1978 l Page 2 PETITIONS. COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MA TERS Claim for Damages: MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED :Y HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE CLAIM Michael R. Desimone AS PRESENTED.* ?aiver to Ordinance Mayor Bauch noted that the wa -1035 - requested site located west of Interurb by Felix Campanella immediately North of the East for property located Council can approve the waive east of 56th Ave. and the recommendation of the S o Councilman Bohrer noted that he "claim as presented" is for $257.81 and this is the higher of the two bids. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY RAYNOR, THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO PAY THE CLAIM IN THE AMOUNT OF $2 3.14. MOTION CARRIED. *MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED. Councilman Traynor asked if C Commission recommendation do He noted that Attorney Hard r and he said he felt Council s Councilman Johanson said he u derstood the applicant would adjust their drawings to some extent to co ply with the Planning Commission recommen( tion. Mayor Bauch said Mr. Campanel a called and said they would be submittin a set of drawings to the City that do not require a waiver. Councilman Bohrer said he has subsequent proposal. One, a p City should discourage the de of their plans to date show d this. Second concern is the with a recent action on anoth Councilman Van Dusen said the waiver is for a this is what is before Council tonight. Kjell .Stoknes, 0.C.D. Direct a waiver for 60 units even t 53. The only thing before C Councilman Van Dusen said Co it through the checklist. C should be taken care of at t WAIVER CHECKLIST CRITERIA VO E AS FOLLOWS: ITEM 1. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON "DOES THE PROPOSED ACTION REPRESENT A UNIQUE CONDITION WHICH IS NOT SIGNIFICANT IN SCALE ? "* Councilman Bohrer sighted fr Ifem #3, "The scale of the p of the site and the amount o project." *ROLL CALL VOTE: NO - BOHRER, HARRIS, HI L, JOHANSON, SAUL, TRAYNOR, VAN DUSEN. MOTION FAILED. ITEM 2. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, ON "HAS THE APPLICANT INVEST WHICH WOULD NOT REQUIRE A WA ver is to construct 60 apartments on a n Avenue and East of 56th Ave. South, West extension of South 139th Street. or deny it based on the staff report Planning Commission. uncil concurres with the Planning e need to review the waiver checklist. commends use of the waiver checklist. ould use it. two concerns he hopes are addressed in th. licy in the Comprehensive Plan says the elopment on slopes exceeding 20 %. All velopment of slopes much steeper than over all density of this proposal compare( r rezone. 60 unit development and r, said formally they have only submitted ough they have talked of reducing it to uncil is the 60 unit proposal. ncil should either approve this or deny uncilman Traynor said he agrees and it is time. m the Application for Waiver Answers, oject is significant due to the topography earthwork required to facilitate the SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES GATED REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE VER ?" * -''.;;iL•� CITY COUNCIL REGUL '•iEETING toter 16, 1978 Pace 3 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS _:•,aide►° to Ordinance Councilman Harris noted that since the application was filed dialogue =1035 - requested has revealed that he has investigated a different alternative. Mayor by Felix Campanella Bauch said this would be prior to submitting this application. for property located east of 56th Ave. *ROLL CALL VOTE: • So. ORDINANCES Ordinance X1083 - Changing the name of the custodian for the "Advance Travel Expense Account." NO - BOHRER, SAUL, VAN DUSEN NO ACTION - HARRIS, HILL, JOHANSON, TRAYNOR MOTION FAILED. ITEM 3. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON IF THE REQUEST FOR WAIVER INVOLVES BUILDING, GRADING, CLEARING, EXCAVATION, OR FILLING IN A GEOGRAPHICAL AREA GENERALLY IDENTIFIED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL BASEMAP AS AN AREA OF HIGH NATURAL AMENITY OR DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINT, ARE MITIGATING MEASURES PROVIDED ? "* Mayor Bauch explained that if the developer is going to make extensive cuts on the hill, cut down most of the trees or items described on the environmental base map - they need to provide mitigating measures. *ROLL CALL VOTE: NO - BOHRER, Ordinance # 1035 introduces the concept of sufficient mitigating measures which is omitted from this, and though the applicant talks about six separate measures he feels mitigate this, I don't concur; HARRIS, HILL, JOHANSON, SAUL, TRAYNOR, VAN DUSEN. MOTION FAILED. ITEM 4. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON "IS THE REQUEST FOR WAIVER CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN ? "* Councilman Bohrer stated slope.and density are two very important items and they are not adequately dealt with. *ROLL CALL VOTE:' NO - BOHRER, HILL, HARRIS, JOHANSON, SAUL, TRAYNOR, VAN DUSEN. MOTION FAILED. ITEM 5. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON "DO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE IMPOSE A SPECIAL HARDSHIP TO A SITE.FOR WHICH A WAIVER OF THE PROVISIONS WOULD NOT NECESSITATE A MAJOR POLICY COMMITMENT PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP?" ROLL CALL VOTE: NO - BOHRER, HARRIS, HILL, JOHANSON, SAUL, TRAYNOR, VAN DUSEN. MOTION FAILED. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE WAIVER BE DENIED BASED ON COUNCIL VOTED ON EACH CRITERIA AND AT LEAST ONE CRITERIA FAILED TO GOT A FAVORABLE VOTE. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Deputy City Attorney Woo read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington amending Section 2 of Ordinance No. 1050, chancing the name of the custodian for the "Advance Travel Expense Account Oc tober 9, 1978v - -- p 3 DISCUSSION- Contd. Prop. guidelines for review of waivers from Did. 1035 on City Light property & presen- tation on property dev. of City Light property - contd. RECESS 8:50 - 9:00 P.M. Campanella Waiver to Ord. 1035 V. . IIL flIIVLL ''ILLILt u remarked there is nesting on Christensen Trail during the summer. Mr. Tunnell said the southwest corner is a refuge where the birds go. He said he did not see why they could not nest there. He said they would like to build along the streets. The buildings are not going to be so close together that people cannot see the lake. Councilman Saul asked if 1/3 of the land is left for open space and lake and the property does not sell, what would be our alterntives? Deputy City Attorney Larry Hard said if someone does not bid and purchase the property City Light is going to continue the law suit against Tukwila. If Tukwila loses the law suit they will have to buy the property from City Light or allow City Light a fill permit so they can fill it in, which is what they want to do. They will have to come in with an appraised valuation of the land. He said the purchase price of the property originally is not relevant in establishing the present value. Councilman Harris said she did not see how they could be able to make such a profit, consider- ing what they paid for the property and the fact that they have not paid any taxes on it. Deputy City Attorney Hard said he had no guess as to what the court results might be. He said he thought it was good to come up guidelines for the use of the property. Councilman Bohrer said if the City has to buy the property, we will compete with the developers and make a profit on it, too. Mr. Stoknes said the policy of requiring 1/3 of the property to remain will have to be evaluated by the Council. He said he would like to encourage the Council to consider the alternative to build on pilings rather than fill. Mr. Satterstrom said the type of wildlife on the pond is not the type you can approach. He said this is part of the natural charm of the site. Mr. Tunnell said he believed the ducks would not retain their wildness as people would feed them and they would become tame. He said this had happened in Bellevue Park. Councilman Bohrer said he thought Council should do some homework and row across the lake and see what is there. Councilman Bohrer asked about the size of the site where the City Shops were built and he asked about the pond there. Mr. Stoknes said it is 11 acres and the City Shops are built on 2.5 acres. Councilman Bohrer said the City Light property will be sur- rounded by development. At the shops there is development on two sides and it is open on the other two sides. Councilman Saul said buildings could be built out over the water on pilings. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT ITEM FIVE OF THE PROPOSED GUIDELINES HAVE SECTION A ADDED AND IT STATE: "PREFERENCE IS GIVEN TO BUILDINGS ON PILINGS RATHER THAN FILL," AND THE FOLLOWING FOUR GUIDE- LINES BE ADDED: (1) APPROXIMATELY ONE -THIRD OF THE SITE REMAIN IN THE NATURAL STATE: (2) THIS NATURAL PORTION BE BASICALLY ON THE SOUTH AND EAST PORTION OF THE SITE AND EXTEND TO ANDOVER PARK WEST: (3) THAT THE NATURAL AREA RETAIN SIGNIFICANT POND PLUS THE NESTING AND COVER AREAS; (4) VISUAL AND PUBLIC ACCESS BE PROVIDED FROM STRANDER AS WELL AS ANDOVER PARK WEST. CARRIED. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT STAFF DEVELOP WORDING TO THE EFFECT THAT IF THE PROPERTY IS SUBDIVIDED AND SOLD IT WOULD BE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEWED AS A WHOLE BEFORE IT CAN BE SOLD. CARRIED MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE GUIDELINES BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE OCTOBER 16, 1978 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES. CARRIED. The Committee of the Whole Meeting was called back to order by Council President Van Dusen, with Council Members present as previously listed. Fred Satterstrom, Planning Supervisor, stated the Planning Commission had reviewed the Campanella waiver application and they recommended to the City Council that the waiver application be denied and the appli- cant be instructed to revise the application to meet criteria before a permit is processed: (1) That a maximum of 53 units be allowed on the subject site with a maximum building size of 4- plexes on the upper benct T i \ILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING October 9, 1978 Page 4 DISCUSSION - Contd. Campanella Waiver to Ord. 1035 - contd. C t '/ MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE SIXTY UNIT WAIVER and apartment type construction on the low -lying portion. (2) Due the steepness and possible instability of the slope, that developmen• be located so as to minimize disturbance to the slope. Mr. Mike Sherlock, audience, said he was speaking in behalf of Mr. .a Mrs. Grant who own the property. He said Mr. and Mrs. Grant had a prospective buyer (Mr. Campanella). The sale is contingent upon the use Mr. Campanella can make of the property. He said Mr. and Mrs. Grant were told at the time of the Comprehensive Land Use meetings i 1977 that there would be no change in the use they could make of the property. When they filed for a building permit they found it had been downgraded. He said Mr. Campanella had redrawn his plans in an attempt to comply with the Planning Department. He said there is one house to the north of the property and the Terrace Apartments behind it. He said he would like the Council to consider a waiver i favor of the Grants to change the upper portion to high density. It had been high density and was changed to medium density. Mr. Felix Campanella, architect and developer, explained they had worked with the recommendations of the Staff and the Planning Commis sion and had come up with 16 units on one ledge and 37 units on the other. He said they would like to have the upper part of the proper zoned high density so they could have 60 units on the property. He said all of the parking can be provided down below. Councilman Hill asked how many stories in the bottom buildings. Mr. Campanella saic there are two levels, it is a townhouse concept. Councilman Saul asked about the degree of the slope and Mr. Campanella said it is probably 2 per cent slope. Council President Van Dusen asked if th' new plan would meet the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Kjell Stoknes, Director of OCD, said it could with the exception of the three additional units. Fred Satterstrom, Planning Supervisor, said he did not know what the grading profile would look like on th' new plan. Mr. Stoknes said he recommended if Council agrees with tr recommendations of the Planning Commission they adopt this report ar if the applicant makes the development consistent with the report a waiver would not be required. Mr. Sherlock, audience, said he thought the Council should look at the upper portion and change it to high density. He said Mr. Grant could have objected at the time of the Comprehensive Land Use hearings if he had known there was going to be a change. He said he had been told the Comprehensive Plan would end up as zoning. He said in downgrading the property tt Grants have lost a lot of money. He said Mr. Campanella has tried to come up with what the Council wants. Mr. Campanella said the Terrace Apartments are built 35 units per acre and their plan show! 27 units per acre on the bottom. Councilman Hill said Terrace Apartments were built some time ago and that density would not be permitted at the present time. Mr. Campanella said they suggested moving three units from the upper to the lower level. Councilman Harris asked if this would conform to the amount of open space required? Mr. Stoknes said he recommended the Council take action c the original application for 60 unit concept as well as consider thi report and adopt the report so the applicant can use this as a guide He continued that if the Council agrees with the report and Mr. Cam' anella conforms, he will need only a building permit. Mr. Sherlock audience, asked if there is any way the Comprehensive Land Use Plan could be changed so high density zoning could be put in on the upper part of the property. Mayor Bauch said it would be a long drawn ou procedure, it would take public hearings, etc. APPLICATION TO ORDINANCE 1035 BY CAMPANELLA BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE OCTOBER 16, 1978 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. CARRIED. Mayor Bauch said he would like to work with these applicants this week and see if the waiver in question can be brought to rest in a manner that is satisfactory to all parties. 3 October 1978 M E M O R A N D U M FNS /ch c CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: City du ,ncil FROM: Fr N. Satterstrom, Planning Supervisor SUBJECT: Cam anella Waiver to Ordinance #1035 Please be advised that the Planning Commission reviewed the Campanella waiver application at their regular 28 September 1978 meeting. The Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that the waiver application be denied and, that the applicant be instructed to revise the appli- cation to meet the following criteria before any permit may be processed by city staff: 1. That a maximum of 53 units be allowed on the subject site, with a maximum building size of 4- plexes on the upper bench and apartment - type construction on the low -lying portion. 2. Due to the steepness and possible instability of the slope, that development be located so as to minimize disturbance to the slope. Attached please find the following: Exhibit A. Minutes: Planning Commission (28 September 1978) Exhibit B. Staff Report: Planning Commission (28 September 1978) Exhibit C. Campanella Waiver Application Exhibit D.1 - D.5 Site /Elevation Drawings of Proposed Development Exhibit E. Public Works Department comments Exhibit F. Fire Department comments Exhibit G. City Council Waiver Checklist 6230 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 242 -2177 3 October 1978 Felix M. Campanella CMB Development Corporation Suite 200 2900 Eastlake Avenue East Seattle, Washington 98102 RE: APPLICATION FOR WAIVER FROM ORDINANCE #1035 Dear Mr. Campanella: This is to inform you that the Tukwila Planning Commission considered your appli- cation for waiver from Ordinance #1035 at their regular 28 September 1978 meeting. Please be advised that the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that the application be rejected and, that the applicant be instructed to revise the application to meet the following criteria before any permit may be processed by city staff: 1. That a maximum of 53 dwelling units be allowed on the subject site, with a maximum building size of four- plexes on the upper bench and apartment -type . construction on the low -lying portion; and 2. Due to the steepness and possible instability of the slope, that development be located so as to minimize disturbance to the slope. The Planning Division will forward the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the City Council for their consideration. It is expected that this matter will appear on the Council's 9 October 1978 committee -of -the -whole agenda, but you should contact the City Clerk's office for verification. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 433 -1845. Respectfully, red N. S tterstrom Planning Supervisor FNS /ch cc: OCD Dir CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6230 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98I88 • (206) 242 -2277 Planning CommissionN Page 3 Minutes 28 September 1978 MOTION BY MRS. AVERY, SECONDED BY MR. WELSH AND CARRIED TO ADD STIPULATION OF 12 -MONTH TIME LIMIT TO COMPLETE THE STIPULATIONS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED. FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING. FELIX CAMPANELLA - WAIVER Mr. Satterstrom read the staff report. Mr. Mike Sherlock, representing owners of property, explained the location of the property and mentioned that Mr. Grant (owner of the property) was told during the Comprehensive Plan public hearings, that his property's zoning designation would not change. Mr. Sherlock said he felt the Comprehensive Plan was unjust and that the upper portion of the property should be high- density due to the surrounding land uses (Foster Golf Course and the Terrace Apartments). Mr. Felix Campanella, 2900 East Lake Avenue East, Seattle, mentioned their concern over the slope stability of the site and explained the development drawings. He also mentioned there was a conflict between what was said in the staff report and what they were told in person during a meeting with the OCD Director, Building Official and Fire Department regarding fire access to the building. Mr. Campanella explained the open space requirements are met. Mr. Satterstrom explained staff's involvement with waiver applications. He said staff makes strict interpretations of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION BY MR. RICHARDS, SECONDED BY MR. SOWINSKI AND CARRIED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY DENY THE APPLICATION FOR WAIVER AND INSTRUCT THE APPLICANT TO REVISE HIS DRAWINGS TO MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA BEFORE ANY PERMIT MAY BE PROCESSED BY CITY STAFF: 1. THAT A MAXIMUM OF 53 UNITS BE ALLOWED ON THE SUBJECT SITE, WITH A MAXIMUM BUILDING SIZE OF 4- PLEXES ON THE UPPER BENCH AND APARTMENT - TYPE CONSTRUCTION ON THE LOW LYING PORTION. 2. DUE TO THE STEEPNESS AND POSSIBLE INSTABILITY OF THE SLOPE, THAT DEVELOPMENT BE LOCATED SO AS TO MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO THE SLOPE. Mr. Sherlock asked how the motion affected the Comprehensive Plan designation on the property. Mr. Richards read from Ordinance #1035 the criteria which influenced him to make the motion. Mr. Sherlock mentioned that he felt getting a waiver was an easier way of changing the Comprehensive Plan designation than getting a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Satterstrom explained to Mr. Sherlock that the next step to be taken was to send the item to the City Council. EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT "B" 28 September 1978 8:00 P.M. AGENDA ITEM V A • Waiver from Ordinance #1035 (Campanella) BACKGROUND At their regular meeting of 21 August 1978, the City Council referred the Campanella waiver request to the Planning Commission for a "review ", (SEE, attached minutes). According to the 0.C.D. Director, the scope of this review was intended to be similar to that which was done for the Schneider waiver last December. Thus, the Planning Commission should confine their review to the application's consistency with the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. The proposed development requires a waiver from Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of Ordinance #1035, (SEE, attached ordinance). With regard to Section 3.1, • the proposed action is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map due to the density on the rear half of the property. The applicant proposes 24.4 units /acre in apartment development; the Plan Map suggests a density 16 or in 4 -plex development. With reference to Section 3.2, the proposal is located in area identified on the Environmental Base - map as an area of constraint, due specifically to the steep slope which bisects the site. Staff directs the Planning Commission's attention to the proposed design of the apartment development as depicted in Exhibits D -1 through D -5 of this report. The proposal is for step -like construction built into the hillside rising from an elevation of approximately 25' (basement parking level) to elevation 113' (upper level of top units). This type of design is inconsistent with zoning regulations (Reference, TMC 18.06.405, and 18.30.030) and will not be discussed in this review. Rather, the scope of this report will be limited to that of the proposal's relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, particularly density and environmental constraints. FINDINGS 1. Application for waiver from Ordinance #1035 was made by Felix M. Campanella on 18 July 1978. The application was considered by the City Council at their 14 August 1978 committee -of- the -whole meeting and 21 August 1978 regular meeting, where the application was referred to the Planning Commission. 2. Size of the subject site is approximately 2.45 acres. 3. The proposed development consists of 60 apartment units, with a possi- bility of conversion to condominiums in the future. These units are proposed to be built in a step -like configuration as depicted in the application attachments. Planning Commission ti.. �' Page 2 Staff Report 28 September 1978 4. Overall density in the proposed development is 24.4 dwelling units per acre. 5. 92 parking stalls are proposed; 49 of these stalls are covered. 6. Surrounding land use in the vicinity of the site includes the Foster Golf Course across Interurban Avenue to the east, single - family residential on the south, vacant land on the north, and the Terrace Apartments (188 units on 54 acres = 35 units average density per acre) across 56th Avenue South to the west. 7. The Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map designates the "lowland" portion of the site for high - density residential use (apartment), allowing 17+ units per acre. The upper bench is designated medium - density residential use (duplex, tri -plex, or 4- plex), allowing up to 16 units per acre. 8. The Environmental Basemap overlays on file in the City's Office of Community Development identify the subject site as having steep slopes and slopes which may be unstable when modified. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed action is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and several specific policies of the Plan, primarily from the Natural Environ- ment element. Map Inconsistencies: The Land Use Plan Map proposes the west half of the property for medium - density residential use (4 -plex maximum, up to 16 units per acre) and the east half for high- density residential use (apartment -type development, 17+ units per acre). The applicant proposes high- density resi- dential use on the entire site. Therefore, that development proposed on the west half of the site is in conflict with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. Policy Inconsistencies: Primarily, the proposal is inconsistent with the policies of the Natural Environment element of the Comprehensive Plan. In this element, Objective 3, Policy 1 discourages development on slopes in excess of 20 percent. The slope which divides the subject site into low and high benches averages about 25 percent. Also, Objective 6 of the Natural Environment element suggests that the geology of the site be considered and evaluated in the site design process. The proposed development cuts into the hillside such that the rear walls of the structure form a retaining wall which steps up the slope, (SEE, Exhibits 0 -3 and D -4 for a cross - sectional view). While the Environmental Basemap shows the slope as possibly unstable when modified, no geologic or soils report has been submitted. 2. Recognizing that the west one -half of the site is designated medium - density residential on the Land Use Plan Map and the east one -half is designated high- density residential, the following formula may be created: Planning Commission Staff Report Medium- density Residential High- density Residential B (A)(B) = C PLAN MAP A LAND AREA MAXIMUM PLAN DESIGNATION DENSITY SO DESIGNATED MAP DENSITY 16 units /acre 27 units /acre* 1.2 ac. 1.25 ac. Page 3 28 September 1978 19.2 units 33.7 units Maximum Recommended Density per Plan Map 52.9 * 27 units /acre is based on the maximum density allowed in the Park Place Rezone. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City. Council . reject the application for waiver and instruct the applicant to revise his drawings to meet the following criteria before any permit may be processed by city staff: 1. That a maximum of 53 units be allowed on the subject site, with a maximum building size of 4- plexes on the upper bench and apartment type construction on the low lying portion. 2. Due to the steepness and possible instability of the slope, that development be located so as to minimize disturbance to the slope. (Please type or print) Permit applied for requiring a waiver: Date of Application: Name of Applicant: Mailing Address: City: Seattle Ownership Interest in Property: Purchaser Legal Description of Property Affected: See Attached. General Location of Property: West of Interurban Avenue and East of 56th Avenue South, immediately North of the East -West extension of South 139th Street. Please see the attached vicinity map. 1. State specifically the action in Ordinance No. 1035 to which you are request- ing a waiver: Waiver . . -. with Comprehensive Plan and 2) Property is located in an area generally identi- fled as Area of Constraint. 2. Briefly and generally describe the action you are proposing, including demen- sional information about the development: See Attached. 3. Does your proposal represent a unique condition which is insignificant in scale? If so, please explain: See Attached. (7 CITY OF TUK\IILA APPLICATION FOR WAIVER FROM THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO, 1035 12 July 1978 Felix M. Campanella 2900 Eastlake Avenue East, Suite 200 Zip: 98102 Phone: 325 -2210 EXHIBIT "C" Waiver from Ordinance #1035 CAMIPANELLA 4. Are other reasonab development alternatives avai ble which would not require a waiver? If so, ..at are these alternatives? See Attached. 5. If the request for waiver involves building, grading, clearing, excavation, or filling in a geographical .area generally identified by the Environmental Base - map as an area of high natural amenity or development constraint, what mitigat- ing measures are provided? See Attached. 6. What goals and policies can you identify which would support your request for waiver, if any? See Attached. 7. In your opinion, do the requirements of Ordinance #1035 impose a special hard- ship to a site which a waiver of the provisions would not necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and Map? See Attached. OWNER'S SIGNATURE: BELOW THIS LINE IS TO BE FILLED IN BY THE CITY: Date application is complete and accepted for filing: Date SEPA review complete: -2- City of Tukwila Application for Waiver Answers 2. The proposed action is to construct 60 apartments consisting of one-bedroom, two - bedroom and efficiency units. The quantity of each unit type together with area of each unit is shown as a part of the attached plans for the proposed project. The configuration of buildings will have an overall dimension of approximately 190 feet. The overall area of the lot is 107,105 square feet and the building covers 28,900 square feet, or a lot coverage of 26 %. Addi- tional project data is found on the site plan sheet of the accompanying drawings. 3. The proposed development does not represent a unique condition because multiple housing is permitted on this site by the present zoning. The scale of the pro- ject, however, is significant due to the topography of the site and the amount of earthwork which is required to facilitate the project. The design of the project is extremely sensitive to the issue of building scale. An examination of the site plan will indicate the effort by the designer to provide a building which is sufficiently modulated, so as to minimize the scale of the building. By the movement of units laterally in plan and vertically in elevation, it is possible to create an interesting building mass. We believe that a more tradi- tional design would not provide the same opportunity for open space within the design. 4. We found no other alternative to the development of this site which would not require a waiver. We make this statement with full awareness the site must be developed sympathetically and harmoniously with the topography and natural amenities of the property; that the proposed structures must have an "organic" relation to the site and be molded into the hillside in the manner that gives the buildings a feeling of growth from the terrain rather than the appearance of an appendage to it. We recognize this is a difficult site. If a reasonable economic return is to be realized, the site must support a minimum of 60 units so as to make this undertaking financially feasible. It is our belief that there is a positive relationship between good design and good economics. 5. We believe that the following mitigating measures are provided with this design. 1. More than 50% of all required parking is covered by building structures. 2. All possible existing trees, significant and non - significant, will be retained. New landscape construction will supplement existing vegetation. 3. Lot coverage is below code requirement and the open space requirement exceeds the code by more than 100 %. 4. The building structure reinforces the site topography rendering the entire building area more stable. 5. Design of project follows contours of the terrain. The condensed building plan retains maximum open space quality and minimizes view restrictions. C £ 2 6. Referring to the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, we believe the following goals and policies to be supportive of the building design for which a waiver is hereby applied. A. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Objective #1 Policy 1. Project maintains existing natural vegetation. Policy 2. Project provides for construction and development of landscaping utilizing live vegetation. Policy 3. The project does not intend to disrupt any more of the natural vegetation than is absolutely necessary for the construction of the buildings. Objective #3 Policy 2. The project takes maximum care to provide and protect the view of hillside residents. Policy 3. Project takes care to preserve the quality of natural land forms. Policy 4. Earth moving will take place only in those areas absolutely required to facilitate construction of the project. Objective #6 Policy 1. Qualified earth engineering consultants will be retained throughout the design and construction of this project. B. OPEN SPACE Objective #1 Policy 1. Project site will be replanted as required in accordance with acceptable landscape plan. Policy 3. Recreation areas and open space will be provided on -site for use by the residents in amount equal to twice code requirements. Policy 4 Lot coverage of this project is 26% which allows open space for other passive recreation. C. RESIDENCE Objective #1 Policy 1. We believe that the design of the project does utilize the topography of the terrain to establish separation between and usages. We believe that the use of the hillside does serve as a buffer between the commercial usage to the east of Interurban to the residential usage to the hillside and plateaus west of Interurban. We also believe that the utilization of the hillside does provide for the maximum livability for each of the complex residents. Policy 4. More than 80% of the automobiles required for this project gain access to the site from Interurban Avenue. 18% of the vehicles to the site, gain access from 56th Avenue South. We believe it is important to bring the major traffic flow to the project from a major established arterial. Objective #2 Policy 1. We believe this project does provide the transitional land use between commer- cial and residential usage. Policy 2. As stated above in Objective 1, Policy 4, we do not encourage traffic for this project to pass through single - family residential area. It should be noted here that the property immediately to the west of 56th Avenue South is likewise used for multi - family residences. Objective #3 Policy 1. Vegetation screens and earth berms between Interurban and the project site will be provided as a part of the landscape plan. Please see site section and elevation included in the accompanying drawings. Policy 3. All utilities for the project will be undergrounded. Policy 5. Parking will be provided as required by the City of Tukwila Building Code and Ordinances. Objective #4 Policy 1. This project encourages the feeling of unity and friendship among all of the residences by providing indoor and outdoor recreational area, open court area, other open spaces and community recreational facilities. Policy 3. Adequate lighting will be provided in all areas of the project including parking lots, walkways, courtyards and recreational areas. 7. We believe the requirement of Ordinance No. 1035 does impose special hardship on this site due to the need to develop the property in an economic and attrac- tive manner. The economics of the project make it necessary to develop a required number of units in a zoning area which has not been reduced to Medium and Low Density Zone. We believe the design of this project is sensitive to the needs and objectives of the City of Tukwila to create residential areas which are desirable, attractive, and most important of all, consistent with good living standards. The design team assigned to this project has tried very hard to accomplish exactly that. We believe the land utilization factor is extremely efficient and that the end result will be an attractive residential project articulated in such a manner as to create good livability, good effi- ciency, and most important of all, a product of which both the City of Tukwila and the developers can well be proud. EXHIBIT D.1 Waiver from Ordinance #1035 CAMPANELLA COGIPOO PAT ON CMS/ OM 0 ANCH 4ECCS • CoNSULTANTS 0 PLANNERS C= Qo gia (flip ci= o rzi O • X 10 czkg • V 00 Q 5 S :• A • EXHIBIT D.4 Waiver from Ordinance #1035 CAMPANELLA • al I MRU■ _ MI ■ I.11 . 10404111 - 12161111111111111 __ NOINIM;MM■ a ®!Mr7u • IN MM. __ u4.4. 'r a4, I. • NMI I 1 _ CL VATION • TW . CMSULTANTS • PLANNERS w 1- w w a 0 2 w W , 2 PUBLIC CORKS IDEPARTMErt 8230 Bouthcenter Boulevard Tukwil Washington 98097 telephone C 20:=1 3 242 - 2177 MEMORANDUM Date: September 20, 1978 To: Roger Blaylock, Assistant Planner From: Dick Williams, Office Engineer W CO Subject: Tukwila Housing: CMB Development t Access to the side from 56th Avenue South should not be allowed. As Cl indicated on the drawings, the slope on the driveway is more than the Q recommended 15% and, in my opinion, would constitute a traffic hazard LL during inclement weather. EC 56th Avenue South is not a developed street and should not be subject w to the additional traffic generated by this development. Sanitary sewer and water are available to this site from Interurban Avenue. The storm system is marginal. ED RKW/dp EXHIBIT "E" Waiver from Ordinance #1035 CAM1PANELLA :, •` , . � rfF � !^ 'sJ..aa2 �1L� •i r` :v y 4 s . , '• �:.�>__'._._ «irti�i•` '�iii@t 'i. •�:��•�.s. tT Waiver from Ordinance #1035 CAMP4NELLA CiyofTu1wHa Fire Department TO: Planning Dept. FROM: Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Comments and requirements DATE: Campanella waiver. 9 -21 -78 Parkplace: Mueert H. Crawley Fire Chief t 1 C-ry OFFICE MEM ■� C Q s ?, \91s3 for proposed Parkplace Condominiums & 1. Waterflow tests need to be made, at the developer's expense, in order to demonstrate that adequate water is available for firefighting purposes. Fire flow requirements shall be deter- mined by the Fire Dept. using the schedule of the Insurance Services Office. 2. Fire apparatus access is totally inadequate for buildings #1, 2, 4 & 5. 3. Any buildings with interior hallways or corridors shall be protected fully by automatic sprinkler systems. 4. Any parking areas under buildings shall be protected by automatic sprinkler systems. Campanella: 1. Grades and resultant access roads and drives are too steep for Fire apparatus use. 2. Any parking or driving areas under buildings shall be protected by automatic sprinkler systems. 3. If the development were to be approved as shown, it would be a firm requirement that the total structure be protected by an automatic sprinkler system. 4. It is doubtfull that sufficient water is available to satisfy fire flow requirements for such a structure. Up to date flow tests'will be required. 5. Fireplace chimneys as shown present a severe and unacceptable fire hazard. 6. The total conflagration hazard potential of such a structure is reminiscent of the antiquated and presently illegal construction of "Row - Rouses" such as are found in areas such as Boston, New York, Ireland and England. This type of structure is totally no acceptable to the Tukwila Fire Dept. Sincerely cc: TFD file f/ Jim Chief. qty of Tukwila Fire Department, 444 Andover Park East, Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 575-4404 PRELIMI {'NARY APPROVAL FQRN CITY COUNCIL W'IAIVER CHECKLIST (PURSUANT TO ORDINANCES 1035 AND 1053) APPLICANT: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE: PROJECT LOCATION: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: INSTRUCTIONS TO COUNCIL PRESIDENT: After discussion by the City Council, there should be a vote on the following criteria, one item at a time. The results of each vote should be shown after each criteria. If a vote on each criteria passes, the waiver should be declared approved. If a vote on one or more criteria fails, the waiver should be declared denied. Criteria may be ruled "not applicable" without affecting the outcome. CRITERIA TO BE VOTED ON: COUNCIL MOTION YES NO NA 1. Does the proposed action represent a unique condition which is not significant ills cale? 2. Has the applicant investigated reasonable alternatives available which would not require a waiver? 3 3. If the request for waiver involves building, grading, clearing, excavation, or filling in a geographical area generally identified by the Environmental Basemap as an area of high natural amenity or development constraint, are mitigating measures provided? 7 ►�1/hl 4. Is the request for waiver consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? 7 5. Do the requirements of this ordinance impose a special hardship to a sitefor which a waiver of the provisions would not necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and Map? 7 // f1/7 EXHIBIT "G" n Preliminary Approva''orm Page 2 DECLARATION BY COUNCIL REGARDING COUNCIL DECISION: • After review and vote on the above five criteria, the Council should vote on one of the following motions: The Council voted on each criteria and passed each one favorably. Preliminary waiver is approved. The Council voted on each criteria and at least One criteria failed to get a favorable vote. Preliminary waiver is denied. Inadequate submittals by proponent. Referred back to applicant for additional specific information. Inadequate information. Referred to administration for a staff report. Significant land use decision. Referred to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Council President Date of Council Action PLANNING PARKS d RECREATION BUILDING C CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4 October 1978 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Kjell 'rtoknes, OCD Director FROM: F N. Satterstrom, Planning Supervisor SUBJECT: Int rpretation of Building Height: Zoning Ordinance (TMC TITLE 18) wit reference to its application to the proposed Campanella devel- opment. BACKGROUND Pursuant to your request, I forward the following zoning code analysis of building height as it relates to the type of structure contemplated in the Campanella waiver application. Bear in mind that this analysis is based on the site, elevation, and cross - sectional drawings submitted for waiver from Ordinance #1035, not final construction drawings. Therefore, this analysis should be considered preliminary. Basically, Felix Campanella proposes to construct a multi -level structure in a step -like fashion on a steeply sloped lot located at approximately 13900 Interurban Avenue. The structure is intended for multi - family occupancy. The proposed design is somewhat unique to the City but, like all other devel- opments, it must comply with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. DEFINITIONS Due to the uniqueness of the proposal, the following definitions are clarified as they relate to the Campanella development: 18.06.120 Building. "Building" is a structure as defined in Section 18.06.680. When separated by division walls without openings each portion so separated shall be considered a separate building. The proposed structure contains an underground parking area located midway up the slope. The parking level has no apparent opening to that portion of the structure located "upslope." Therefore, the proposed development may be con- sidered two (2) buildings. 6230 Southcenter Boulevard ■ Tukwila, Washington 98188 ■ (206) 242-2177 Memorandum Page 2 Kjell Stoknes 4 October 1978 18.06.170 Building height. "Building height" means the vertical distance mea- sured from the average elevation of the proposed finish grade around the build- ing to the highest point of a flat roof and to the mean height between eaves and ridge of a pitched roof. As mentioned above, there are two (2) buildings in the proposed development. The height of Building #1 would be measured from average surrounding eleva- tion (SEE, definition of "Grade," 18.06.405) to the mean height between the eaves and ridge of the peaked roof located east of the open court (i.e., Point "A" on attached cross - section). The height of Building #2 would be measured from average surrounding elevation to the mean height between the eaves and ridge of the peaked roof located west of the open court (i.e., Point "B" on attached cross - section). From the preliminary drawings, it appears that the height of Building #1 is approximately 36 feet; the height of Building #2 is approximately 43 feet. 18.06.650 Story. "Story" is that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a basement, cellar or unused underfloor space is more than six feet above grade as defined herein for more than fifty percent of the total perimeter or is more than twelve feet above grade as defined herein at any point, such basement or unused underfloor space shall be considered as a story. 18.06.080 Basement. "Basement" means that portion of a story partly underground and having at least one -half of its height or more than five feet below the adjoining finish grade. It is difficult to analyze the Campanella application as far as the number of stories and basements are concerned because the finish grade is not indicated on the drawings. As far as this analysis is concerned, it is estimated that finish grade would approximate the existing grade. Using this assumption, Building #1 contains either five (5) stories or four (4) stories and a basement. Building #2 would contain either five (5) stories and a basement or four (4) stories and two (2) basements. BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS OF ZONE DISTRICT The present zoning of the subject site is C -2 (Local Retail Business). The C -2 district allows multiple- family development to R -4 density standards. The Campanella proposal appears to be within these density parameters. The building height regulation in the C -2 district is as follows: 18.30.030 Height. Buildings or structures shall not exceed three stories and shall not exceed forty -five feet in height. When adjoining a district, within the same block, which has a greater height limit, the height in the C -2 district may be increased to six stories but shall not exceed seventy- five.feet. When adjoining two or more districts within the same block, one of which districts Memorandum Page 3 Kjell Stoknes has a height limit of less than seventy -five feet, the lesser height limit shall govern, but, in no case, need it be less than that allowed for district C -2. No adjoining zone district has a height limit greater than the R -4 district (or, the C -2 district) and, therefore, the three (3) story and 45 -foot limitations stand. As mentioned, the height of Building #1 appears to be about 36 feet while Building #2 appears to be about 43 feet. Both are within the height limit in terms of vertical height. But, as also discussed, the number of stories in both buildings appears to be greater than three and, therefore, both buildings are in violation of 18.30.030. SUMMARY From the preliminary site, elevation, and cross - section drawings submitted by the applicant, it appears that there are two (2) buildings as defined by the zoning ordinance. While both buildings appear to be within vertical height regu- lations of the C -2 zone district, the number of stories in each building may be in violation of the maximum number of stories permitted, perhaps by as much as two (2) stories in each building. It should be noted again that this analysis is preliminary in nature due to the lack of specific construction drawings. A final evaluation of the proposal's conformance to all zoning regulations cannot be done until this information is available. FNS /ch cc: M/F #78 -26 -W CoiV t'R is /1 17' 77 s 1t ( 4 October 1978 n H� 44• II �� ___1! — BUILDIN& 0 2 WEST4 --t • +iry. y • . 1. 4.j:i1.: .$t :..... �...nnel d. . • . -7a SITE 6EGTiCN , -A re + 1' - O' BUILDING • •1 TUkW L • UP-N L`';jL� LL 77S 10i0 v o D` ELOP uil l' COORPON ATll© 1 •OE fl 4 [INC ARCHITECTS • COO I8U[T lrA[MT PLC IALMEN8 yr t e.,.'y �. —� iiiii iiii i 11 ii II::: I I i i iiiii : : : • ! ii r\17 oKiii 7 erm© r • .1.--srit.•••■• • • 0g, •■••••-• If V (11r0111 • i• . ••••-•••7 ----- a ▪ .:'• • .44 PrettS • 17 • t so Lai Ver • ". ar.. • • ! • • r•-• — • 1 t r. F , - ..*-2); II 1. •■••• •• "-r- tca,rie. j.w.irrz — 1 - th ant,: 1 Plwa-dirtl gyps •11•••1 01 • 1..4 I 11)41 .:.-•ettl. • ! • - ( •/ I ,cer 441 I U ITh L Ln 1.1 1 1 1..VU111,.1 L IM-UV-l11\ 1'ILL I ll\U August 21, 1978 Page 2 BID OPENINGS AND AWARDS - CONTINUED Sale of Structure for Removal, BID REJECTED - Cont. BID AWARD: Construction of 450 sq. yds. of Rockery PETITIONS, Waiver request: Jack Grant Prop. between 56th Ave. So. & Interurban nu . • . I I vm ■.v..• n avvv CAMPANELLA Councilman Traynor said the building has to be taken down even if the City has to pay to get it removed. Councilman Hill said it seems like someone in this City would be interested in moving the house onto one of their lots. He asked if Council could direct Staff to negotiate for the sale of the building and have it removed by the middle of October. Mr. Monaghan said they would like it removed by October 1. Staff is moving out of the building next week and into the small conference room at new City Hall. The Recreation Department has already moved to Southgate. Councilman Hill again suggested that Staff try to negotiate a sale of the house with possible removal in the time frame allowed. If it gets down to the point of holding up the landscaping for over two weeks then it should be demolished and hauled out of there. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT STAFF TRY TO NEGOTIATE A SALE AND REMOVAL OF THE BUILDING AND IF THEY ARE UNABLE TO WITHIN A TWO WEEK PERIOD, THEY START THE PROCESS TO DEMOLISH THE HOUSE. * Councilman Hill clarified that it is whatever time frame it takes so they don't hold up the landscaping for over two weeks. * MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Monaghan explained that these are the rockeries to complete the 1977 Street Improvement Project along 58th Avenue. They were added to the 1978 program and the bids were rejected. Now, they have been pulled out and bid separately. One bid was received in the amount of $21,830.32 from Property Elegance of Tacoma. He recommended that the bid be accepted. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION AND AWARD THE ROCKERY BID TO PROPERTY ELEGANCE. MOTION CARRIED. COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS Kjell Stoknes explained that this waiver by Jack Grant for property located between 56th Ave. South and Interurban Avenue in the vicinity of South 138th Street. At that time there were some questions regarding code compliance. The Architect has come up with some changes to attempt to meet the obvious code requirements. On a preliminary basis it is difficult to tell if they meet all the code requirements because all the City gets is a cross section and a site plan. The Fire Department reviewed the revisions and they still have some concerns. Mr. Stoknes stated his basic concern is that if Council approves this and they go ahead and complete their final working drawings, substantially the same as approved, Council is obligated to grant the final waiver. He recommended having the Planning Commission review the criteria in Ordinance W1035 and make a recommendation back to the Council. The reason a waiver is required is the property is shown as medium and high density on the Comprehensive Plan and their proposal is for high density. Mr. Felix M. Campanella, Architect (2900 Eastlake Avenue East, Seattle) displayed the revised drawings and explained the changes that were made based on comments from the last Committee of the Whole Meeting and the meeting with staff. The property is a combination of medium and high density but the proposal of 60 units on 107,000 square feet fits neither zoning. The site is relatively flat on the east and west sides but steep across the middle, some places as great as a 27% grade. The proposal being offered is one where the contours of the site conform and dictate the contours of the buildings. After discussions two important things came to the foreground: 1. A request from the Fire Department that the buildings be accessible from both Interurban and 56th Ave. South. The drawings have been revised to allow an approach from Interurban, along the south property line, through the parking garage in the center of the building and exiting up the north property line to 56th Ave. South. There is a 30% grade up the slope from Interurban and less than a 20% from the building to 56th Avenue. A second request by the Fire Department was to be able to drive fire equipment through the parking garage. The drawing represents a 14 foot clearance. IUl\I4.L/1 Va ++ l.UU1rt+1L August 21, 1978 Page 3 Waiver request: Jack Grant Prop. between 56th Ave. So. & Interurban - Cont. Surplus Equipment RLUULPIR 19LL 1 iIrU PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS - CONTINUED 2. The Building Department requested a shift in the buildings to make the slope of the buildings less critical. The drawing shows a shift of about 15 feet laterally. This makes the design a number of three story buildings stepping up the hill. . Mr. Campanella said they have no quarrel with the requirements of the U.B.C.'or the Codes of the City. Their proposal is a respectable use of the real estate because they stabilize the site by the structures proposed. The appearance of the buildings and the excavation are respectable. Basically, they are here to submit a viable plan and to indicate a willingness to work with the City. Councilman Hill expressed concern over the stories he has heard about the coal mine shafts in this area. Neighbors have talked about problems with the ground settling. Mr. Campanella said they have actually obtained the location of the mine shafts from the U.S. Bureau of Mines. The drawings are only drawings and only as accurate as the person who drew them. There were no mine shafts indicated on the subject real estate. The next step is to hire a competent Soils Engineer to come in and take some borings. Councilman Harris distributed pictures she had taken of a development on Mercer Island that is under construction by the same company requesting this waiver. Mr. Stoknes again recommended that if Council has any concern about this proposal there should be more review of the preliminary plans. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THIS WAIVER REQUEST BE TURNED OVER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW. * Mr. Stoknes said it would go on their agenda for the fourth Thursday in September and could come back to Council early in October. Councilman Hill asked how many units per acre this proposal is and was told 24. Councilman Traynor said he would like to see the Planning Commission review this and see if it does comply with the Comprehensive Plan. * MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Campanella explained that Council has put them in a very difficult spot because their option with the sellers comes to an end before the date the Planning Commission will hear the proposal. Unless they can get an extension time will run out. John McFarland, Administrative Assistant, reviewed the capital equipment which has been declarB4 surplus by various Departments of the City. Disposition of these items can be done by public auction or sealed bid. If Council concurs with the recommendation to declare these items surplus, he further recommended that they be disposed of through public auction. Experience has shown that auction yields a greater return to the City. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE EQUIPMENT BE DECLARED SURPLUS AND PUT UP FOR AUCTION. * Councilman Hill asked where the auction will be held and was told in the Lake Wilderness area. He said the citizens paid for this equipment and now they have to go clear to Lake Wilderness to bid on it. He said it bothers him that the citizens don't get the opportunity to try to buy it. Mr. McFarland said he agreed but the administrative costs of holding an auction would cut deeply into any return the City would get. Mr. Ed Robinson, 6433 South 153rd, said that it has always been past practice that Tukwila Residents are the last to get bought from or sold to. This is going along with past practice. * MOTION CARRIED WITH HILL VOTING NO. • Y+ M 0 V W U 2 a 2 ti CC 0 CITY OF TUKWILA. WASHINGTON • ORDINANCE NO. 1035 • AN ORDINANCE ES- TABUSHiNG.• PROCE- DURES FOR REVIEW OF PROJECTS INCON- . SISTENT WITH THE NEW COMPREHEN- • SIVE LAND USE PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila has established the policy of preventing any land use actions that would be detrimental with regard to present community values . and future goals and re- • sources as demonstrated by the adoption of Resolution No. 489 on August 4, 1975, until a new Comprehensive Land Use Plan could be adopted by the City that conforms to current values and goals; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 489 will no longer be in -effect after the adoption of the New Comprehensive Land Use Plan; and VW I VCr I rum Ur U I11C0IIl.0 r 1J JJ CAMPA14ELLA 'lui , l 4:70 { •. }.:4 : ,..1.41,..-,.;•:. ..t.irt• :1i 4: k . . • Public Notices .; ,• . Public Notices WHEREAS: the City fi .:�;:; waiver'•involvis •build ''adopting a new Comprehen -. -. ing, grading, dealing.: sive . Land Use Ptan simul - ; ...• . excavation or fining in • taneous with the adoption of '• ;. 9 hiarea by �.• this ordinance; and,, _.. WHEREAS,. the zbnlng : :E n t r o n m e n tat. laws still in existence for the ' : Basemap as an area of City_ of Tukwila were 'high natural amenity or adopted prior to the new City developme con- , of Tukwila Comprehensive • straint. • Land Use Plan and will need 4. That the request for r to be revised to accomplish waiver is oonsistentwtlh the goals and objectives of ' the goald and policies of the Plan; and ' the Comprehensive WHEREAS, his clear that Land Use Policy Plan. the zoning map for the City , 5. That the requirements of Tukwila no longer reflects . of this ordinance im- the Comprehensive Plan of pose a special hardship the community, Its legisla- to a site for which a tive body and currently- • waiver of the provisions recognized state 6f the art of would not necessitate a planning. . NOW, THEREFORE,. THE CITY COUNCIL' OF THE CITY OF . TUKWILA, -*• ' WASHINGTON, DO' OR- DAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Policy State- ment All segments of the City, Including the City Council, Its advisory bodies and the administration, are directed to begin the de- • velopment of a new zoning ordinance and map using the new Comprehensive Land Use policies, plans, and maps as a guide. Section 2. Definition. As used herein, "Comprehen- sive Land Use Plan Map" shall mean the maps of the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan document. Section 3. Waiver Re- quired. Until such time as the zoning ordinance and map are brought into confor- mance with the new Com- prehensive Land Use Plan Map or until the termination of this ordinance, whichever shall occur first, the following actions shall require a waiv- er and approval thereof by the City Council prior to processing of the applicable I use permit by the City: f Land Use actions, •which are inconsistent with the new Com- prehensive Land Use Ian Map. roposals for building, grading, cleaning, exca- vation or filling which are located in a geog- • raphical area generally identified by. the En-• vironmental Basemap • of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan as an area of constraint. Building permits for sing -1 to -famiy homes are exempt from the provisions of this ordianoe. Section 4. Complees Ap- plication. The Ply shall not process any waiver until such time as a complete app_eation for the applicable pent* has been received, inducing compiance with the State Environmental Policy Act, as set forth in RCW 4321G. -. Section 5. Waiver Re- qussi A waiver shall not be granted unless a majority of ' the City Council finds that' the proposed action is con- sistent with the following criteria: t That the proposed so- lion does represent a unique condition which is insignificant in scats. 2. That no other reason- . ble alternatives are av- ailable which would not require a waiver. 3. That sufficient mitigat- ing measures are pro- vided if the request for major policy commit- ment prior to the adop- tion of the Zoning Ord- mince and Map. S Section 6. Termination • Date. This ordinance and the policy herein adopted shall remain in effect until . the second regular council meeting of January 1979. Section 7. Severabiltty Clause. if any portion of this ordinance is deemed to be in violation of the constitution of this State or of the United States of America or of any other law, rule or regulation, said finding shall not render the remaining sections of this ordinance void. PASSED BY THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof thls 19 day of September, 1977. Edgar D. Baudi • Mayor Attest: Maxine Anderson City Clerk Approved as to form: Lawrence E. Hard City Attorney, Deputy Published in The Renton Record - Chronicle Septemb- er 22. 1977. T1256 PARKS RECREATIO!. FLA II!IG EMI LDIPIG 9 August 1978 MEMORANDU£1 TO: City Council FROM: Kjell Stoknes c MTV' of TU KWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT it SUBJECT: Waiver Request - Jack t Property The above - referenced property is located between 65th Avenue South and Interur- ban Avenue in the vacinity of South 138th Street. Some basic information related to this property is as follows: 1. Land Area: 170,105 square feet. 2. Stories: Maximum 3 stories. 3. Height: Lower portion is 42 feet above Interurban Avenue and upper portion is 82 feet above Interurban Avenue. The buildings generally go upwards with the slope of the land. 4. Slope of Land: The land reaches a maximum slope of 27 %, approximately. 5. The property is proposed to contain 60 apartment units, representing 24.4 dwelling units per acre. 6. The proposal would include 92 parking spaces, of which 49 would be undercover. 7. The total land coverage of impervious services would be 74 %, or 79,048 square feet. 8. 26% of the land area would be in landscaping or open space. This represents 28,057 square feet. 9. Exterior building material were explained as follows: a. Exterior Finish: Cedar siding or red wood. b. Windows to be anodized aluminum. Uncertain regarding insulated windows. 6230 Southz:eutar Boulevard a Tukwila, Washington 98188 o (206) 242 -2177 MEMORANDUM City Council c. Sound insulation is proposed between units, however, no comnitment made regarding sound insulation on exterior walls. d. The proposal is for apartments, however, there is a possibility they may be sold as condominiums. It is recommended that the City Council review the preliminary approval form adopted by the City Council in an earlier meeting and use that in your decision deliberations. A waiver is required on this property because the majority of it shows on the Comprehensive Plan Map as medium - density, four- plexes, 17 units per acre maximum. KS /ch cc: Mayor Bauch Page 2 9 August 1978 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING August 14, 1978 Page 2 DISCUSSION - Contd. Water Dist. 75 Proposal & Seattle Water Dept. Surcharge !laiver Request - Jack Grant Property located between 56th Ave. So. & Interurban'Ave. C Terry Monaghan, Public Works Director, referred to his letter of August 10, 1978 to Mayor Bauch stating that in a memo on May 18, 197 regarding proposed water rate from Water District 75 he had recommen ded, based on the economics, that Water District 75 would be a more economical supply source for the Bow Lake Line -fed system; i.e., 22 cents per 100 cubic feet vs. 22.6. However, since that time the City of Seattle has been enjoined from passing along their Seattle business and occupation tax to customers outside the City of Seattle` limits. Accordingly, effective June 20, 1978 an 8% rate reduction was applied to the rate the City of Tukwila and Water District 75 are charged by Seattle. He referred to Table II and said the total cost and average unit cost per 100 feet are $105,886.70 and 21.5 cen. per 100 feet for the total system (all stations) with the estimated surcharge instead of the $112,721 and 22.9 cents per hundred cubic feet shown in Table II. When this is compared to Table III of the report which shows the total cost and unit cost of water based on purchasing the estimated surcharge quantity from Water District 75 a- 22 cents per hundred cubic feet at' $91,462 and 18.6 cents per hun- dred cubic feet and shows that the purchase of surcharge quantity frc Water District 75 to still be eonomical. He said his proposal to purchase more than the surcharge quantity from Water District 75 is no longer valid if Water District 75 'charges 22 cents per hundred cubic feet with the 8% reduction in cost from Seattle. In referring to page 5 of the report the commodity charge of $12,036 is reduced to $11,115.60 and the demand charge of $3,960 is reduced to $3,667.2(; for a reduced total of $14,782.80. This total dividend by the estimated usage of 70,800 CCF per year off the Bow Lake System gives anew unit cost of 20.87 cents which is less than the proposed Water District 75 rate of 22 cents. He said he had discussed an across the board reduction of 8% by Water District 75 on the 22 cents per 100 cubic feet rate and all indications are that it will not occur. The Seattle Water Department indicates there will be a rate increase in mid 1979 at which time the economics of operation will be evaluated again. He said from this reasoning his recommenda tion would be that an inter -tie agreement be negotiated and implemen- ted between Water District 75 and the City of Tukwila at a wholesale of not more than 22 cents per 100 cubic feet. After this is done, the existing inter -tie between the two systems can be'activatec and Water District 75 would be in a position to obtain the additional fire flow required to serve the Segale Business Park. Mr. Monaghan used a walimap and answered questions from the Council members. He explained flow meters would have to be installed to measure the pressure. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT A RESOLUTION BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE AUGUST 21, 1978 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING TO NEGOTIATE AN INTER -TIE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WATER DISTRICT 75 AND THE CITY OF TUKWILA. CARRIED. Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director, explained the location of the property as being between 56th Avenue South and Interurban Avenue in the vicii ity of South 138th Street. He said the land area was 107,105 square feet; the maximum stories would be 3; the lower portion of the prop- erty is 42 feet above Interurban Avenue and upper portion is 82 feet above Interurban Avenue. The buildings generally go upwards with the slope of the land. The land reaches a maximum slope of approximately 27 %. The property is proposed to contain 60 apartment units, representing 24.4 dwelling units per acre. The proposal woull include 92 parking spaces, of which 49 would be undercover. The total land coverage of impervious services would be 74% or 79,048 square feet. He said 26% of the land area would be in landscaping or open space. This represents 28,057 square feet. He said exterio building material showed cedar siding or redwood. Windows would be anodized aluminum. He was undertain regarding insulated windows. Sound insulation is proposed between units, however, no commitment made regarding sound insulation on exterior walls. The proposal is for apartments, however, there is a possibility they may be sold as condominiums. He recommended that the Council review the prelim- inary approval form adopted by the City Council and use it in decisi deliberations. He said a waiver is required on this property becaus the majority of it shows on the Comprehensive Plan Map as medium TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL CQV "'TTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ( August 14, 1978 Page 3 DISCUSSION - Contd. Waiver Request - density, four plexes, 17 units per acre maximum. Jack Grant Property - contd. Mike Sherlock, speaking for property owner Jack Grant, said Mr. and Mrs. Grant have had problems on this property and confusion as to what the Comprehensive Plan has said and how they have understood it. He said Mr. Campanella has made an offer to buy the property. The property was originally C -2 and when the Comprehensive Plan was being discussed Mr. Grant asked what was going to happen to his property and he was told it would not be downgraded so he did not attend the meetings. He said the site would be a nice condominium complex and that it will serve the needs of the community. Mr. Felix Campanella, audience, said he was at the meeting as a developer owner. He said he had made an offer to purchase the property. Sixty units have been designed, there is a slope, and although the density is in excess of what the Comprehensive Plan suggests, he pointed out the configuration of the buildings are in levels rather than stories. By arranging the levels most of the 92 automobiles will be under cover so they will not show on the landscape. He said they had doubled the required recreation space. He said the open space would be approximately 74 %, 25% of the space has been allocated to landscaping. He said they intended to provide sound and insulation windows, in some units the decks may be enclosed. The design proposed would stailize the ground. He said he believed the plan would be one that would be fun to live in. Councilman Traynor asked about other projects Mr. Campanella has built and he said he had a project under construction at 155th and Bothell Way. Mr. Campanella attached drawings to the wall and pointed out the arrangement of the buildings and the traffic flow. Councilman Dan Saul arrived at the meeting at 8:10 P.M. Mr. Campanella said the units would run from 740 square feet to 1,280 square feet so they are not small, most of them are townhouses He said at the present time they are thinking of them as rental unit Councilman Saul asked if the proposed project met the building code with respect to height. Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director, said grade would be defined as the lowest point and pointed out the location on the wall map. He said a couple of the buildings looked like they might be in violation due to height and stories. Mr. Campanella said they would work with the Staff, but they thought it would fit the site. Mr. Stoknes said this is a preliminary waiver request and when the City Council approves they would want it to meet the City requirements before the final approval. The purpose of this is to not cause the applicant a lot of expense to get the approval. Council President Van Dusen. said the Council would go over the entire project before next week's meeting. He said he was not sure the mass of buildings would fit in, also he wondered about the open space and landscaping, and ingress and egress. Mr. Stoknes said it was his estimation the project would lose five to ten units in order to meet the City code. Mayor Bauch asked if the buildings are separate or attached. Mr. Campanella said they are attached or tied together by the walkways. The square footage of each unit will vary, but they average 1,000 square feet per unit. Mayor Bauch stated all buildings having over 20,000 feet have to have sprinklers MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE WAIVER REQUEST OF JACK GRANT BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE AUGUST 21, 1978 REGULAR COUNDIL MEETIN Mr. Stoknes said he would be glad to work with Mr. Campanella and advise him on the City requirements. Councilman Johanson said he thought Fire Chief Crawley should provide information on fire safety *CARRIED. RECESS MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL,' THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 8:40 - 8:45 P.M. MEETING RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. The Committee of the.Who1e Meeting was called back to order by Council President Van Dusen with Council Members present as prev- iously listed. 307 Terminal Sales Building Seattle, Washington 98101 June 20, 1978 Mr. Kjell Stoknes, Director Office of Community Development City of Tukwila 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Plans submitted by Felix Campanella in proposed building of condominium units on the property owned by Jack S. Grant. (Please refer to copy of map for location.) Dear Mr. Stoknes: Through this letter I am introducing Felix Campanella and his associates who have purchased the above mentioned property for the purpose of developing multi - family structures. To bring you up to date on this project, you will recall a letter you received from Jack S. Grant and your answer back (see attached) in March of this year. At that time, the comprehensive plan restricted building of any quantity near the zoning of said property, and we were not aware that any major change was being made on the property. After receipt of your letter, we began the process of filing for an amendment to the comprehensive plan. Upon submitting such a request, we found that the council had established a waiver policy, and at that time the subsequent offer to purchase the property was offered. The Grants and I then felt that it was to the benefit of all concerned that we let Mr. Campanella draw up his plans for development of the property; and with Mr. Campanella and ourselves we would submit this to you and act on any decision that may be forthcoming. With this we will let the plans speak for themselves. Cordially yours, Michael Sherlock MS:jcd enc. • PARKS & REC,EATION PLANNING BUILDING 29 June 1978 Very truly yours, KS /ch Felix Campanella 2900 Eastlake Avenue East Seattle, Washington 98102 11 Stoknes, Director 0.JFice of Community Development CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: Site Plan Review for Property on Interurban Avenue, Tukwila Dear Mr. Campanella: This letter is to inform you that I have completed a review on the above - referenced property as it relates to Ordinance #1035 of the City of Tukwila, which requires a waiver for all developments inconsistent with the Compre- hensive Plan. My conclusion after review is that your application will definitely require a waiver from the City Council prior to the City issuing building permits. The reasons for the waiver being necessary are as follows: 1. The property is located in an area which is generally identified by the Environmental Base Map of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as an area of constraint. 2. The land use map shows this property as approximately 2/3 medium density and 1/3 high density, with the medium density on the western portion of the property. Your proposal shows apartments covering the entire site and is not consistent with that map. I have attached a copy of Ordinance #1035 and•the procedures and forms necessary to apply for a waiver to the City Council should you wish to do so. Please note that complete building permit applications are not necessary prior to us accepting a waiver application. Ordinance 71053 is attached amending section 4 of Ordinance #1035 in that regard. If you have any questions please call me. cc: Al Pieper, Mayor Bauch 6230 Southcentor Boulevard n Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 242 -2177 2 March 1978 Jack S. Grant 4220 - 42nd Avenue South Seattle, WA 98118 Dear Mr. Grant: Very truly yours, K )+e kNe Kjell Stoknes, Director Office of Community Development KS /ch CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: Your letter addressed to Mr. Van Dusen dated February 18, 1978. The above referenced letter requested that the Council amend the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan for your property. Mr. Van Dusen, through Mayor Bauch, has requested that I respond to your letter and state the City's position on processing procedures. At the present time, the City of Tukwila does not have a formal application form to use in amending the Comprehensive Plan. We intend to initiate an application form for this very shortly. This would set forth procedures and criteria for the Council to use in judging Comprehensive Plan amendments. There presently is a fee established for this procedure at $200.00. In addition, there would be a $50.00 filing fee required for the submittal of an Environmental Questionnaire. As far as your letter is concerned, it has not been introduced at the Council table by any of the Councilmen, therefore, it will not be considered by the City Council. In order to get an item before the City Council such as this, it must be sponsored by a City Councilmen or processed through the proper administrative procedures and placed on the City Council Agenda by the administration. Since there are not adequate procedures for administration to process it to the Council and since it was not sponsored by a City Councilmen, there will be no action taken on this letter. Please call Fred Satterstrom at 242 -2177 periodically to determine when the proce- dures have been set up by the City that would allow you to make application to amend the Comprehensive Plan. cc: Gary Van Dusen, Council President Mr. Dwayne Traynor Mr. Fred Satterstrom Mayor Edgar D. Buach Mrs. Mabel Harris Mr. George Hill Mr. Lionel C. Bohrer Mr. Reid Johanson Mr. Dan Saul 6230 Southcen 4oulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 ?06) 292 -2177 :=ary 'Ven Dausen, President • Tekriln City Council 1:!7'; - 59th-ieenno South reishington 9C1C:8 • I I' • 7 /1220 - h2nd Avenue South Centtle, %shington 98118 February 18, 1978 Tire pmrnose of this letter is to request an emendment to the Comprehen- sive Plan sdotted by ti;e City of Tukwila in Septee.ber,,1977. For the rensons steted below, re hopo tho City Council will consider such an nneednert. The property in questicn is situated between Interurban Avenue and 56th P South. ($ec ateechee map.) I hnee owned thlc property for the pest 13 yecrs. During ehat entire tire, our property hns been zoned corzeorcielAigh density. rei have receivoel cur 1975 reoeerty t stutement in..1 the property has ssnoeved o: '.:/h: doncity. In Auelust of last year, we informed thnt the City of Tukwila was gcing to adopt the Comerehonsi,ve Plan. 'ee cteeeded seeerel council meet- ings to try and find out how this Plan would affeet our property. To dOei, re still don't know. At the council meetings I specifically aslccd tho council, and in par- t'cular !Layer 3nueh, which portion of the property would be changed. I rms nsEured that the lorer half, or approximately 1.5 :eras, would re- main conmerciel, and that the upper heir (which runs along 56th Avenue South) would be rezoned to high density, but no loror. Kayor Bauch stat- ed that the commercial zoning could be removed from the upper half but that hit} 1 deesity apertrunts rculd he allowed and would not be dropped to mult5ple zoning, 2-, 3—, or )-pia. In essence no major change. 'ith this assureneo, re made :o ettempt to argue the Comprehensive Plan ndoetion. niever he rd nnother role o 1 change or notification of any changos nt all. Folloring thic in Hcrf 1977, re decided to sell the property or hie;11 rise apert,ents oursolees. e ilflediately found a buyer for the property .':ho intenled to build a certuir nueler of fipartment units, aeproxinately 70-75. From what wo rere told by the eity'council, we knew the 70-75 vnitts were w.111 rithin the zoning. 4 Gary 'T•,:i Dauson, President two c ohrt::rry 18, 1W8 Enc. cc: Mayor Edgar D Bauch Mr. Lionel Bohrer 1:'.s. Mabel Parris l.:r. George Mill 1'r. Reid Johanson J)an Saul ]v'r. Dwayne 'Traynor :r. Fred Sattorstrom c ' Sincerely, , ll Jack S. Grant T . eider to cor!r:v.;rr :ate the sale, the builder and our son -in -law, l.rike `=...lrtoa,: , went tc the Tukwila Building Departmcn t : There i hay wore cld o::.tetly i t . o rnosi to of what we understood--the upper portion zo'_:od rt : :.:;diLr:: der,sit :.. If in fact the upper portion is zoned ct creditor de:.sity, this - °culd cut the number of apartment units that �cu1d be boot ty hilf.. On Thursday, February 17, 1978, riy wife and son-in-law net with Fred Sattesr:.trow to clarify exactly whore we stood. Mr. Satterstrorn told The! :: hut the lover portion vt zon •ommercial /hi.gh density and that the uppers portion (1.2 acres) was zoned .aodium density` multi family 4v thplex triplex fourplex and cnly — writs per acro. Again to clarify our position, we are asking the council to amend the Oor ^:rrehensi.ve Plan so that the upper portion bo brought back up to high density and the lower portion be left at commercial /high density. I night also add that directly across our property on 56th South is the Terrace Arartments, tho largest apartment complex in Tukwila, and stretches tho length of our property. Across from Interurban Avenue is Foster Golf Course. By changing the zoning on the upper portion back to high density, it stands to re:ci on that no rrpr•.rtrent complex would degrade the value of the surrounding arcs;. It was also stated to pis by several council rr,en'bors that no positive decision could be established bocuuso of existing sites. re are aware that other things crust be met in order to build, but we want to be able to have the zoning such so th we could abide by the Comprehensive Plan and still retnin at least our original investment, rand not lose substantially because of such a large downgrading. Your prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated. When this smatter is brought before a council meeting, please notify us so that we can attend the meeting. s. EXHIBIT "A" The Easterly 120 feet of the following described tract: Parcel (a) That portion of the Stephen Foster Donation Maim no. 38, Township 23 north, range 4 east, W.M., in King County, 'vashington,described as follows: Beginning at a point and stake in the south line of said Donation Claim, C\I which is 926.45 feet south and 1499.40 feet east of the quarter section C„) corner in the west line of section 14 of said township; running thence O east along the south line of said Donation Claim 444.50 feet, more or O less, to a point and stake in the westerly line of the right of way of the Seattle Tacoma Interurban Railway; thence north 44 ° 51' west along said right of way line 39.53 feet, more or less to a stake marking the south- east corner of the tract of land conveyed to Joseph Foster and wife to Philip K. Ahern by deed recorded in volume 362 of deeds, page 625, records' .of King County; thence west along the south line of said tract 444.50 feet, more or less to a stake marking the southwest corner of said tract; thence south 45 ° 49' east 39.53 feet, more or less to the point of begin- ning; EXCEPT that portion thereof lying northeasterly of a line parallel with and distant 60 feet southwesterly of the westerly line of said right of way of the Seattle Tacoma Interurban Railway heretofore conveyed to King County for road purposes; and EXCEPT any portion thereof lying within Lemon Road (56th Avenue South) as established; ALSO The Easterly 120 feet of the following described tract: Farcel (b ) That portion of the Stephen Foster Donation Claim No. 38, Township 23 North, range 4 east, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows; Beginning at a point in the westerly line of the right of way of Puget Sound Electric Railway, which point is 49•feet northerly from the intersection of said westerly line with the south line of said Donation Land Claim; thence along said westerly line north 45 west 512 feet, more or less to a point 397 feet southerly from its intersection with the southerly line of an 18 foot lane (now know as South 137th Street); thence south 65 west 211 feet, more or less to a point which is 128 feet north 65 east from the easterly margin of Lemon Road (56th Avenue :'outh) as established March 9, 1906; thence south 45049' east 85 feet thence south 65° west 128 feet to a point on said road margin which is south 45 °49' east 541.25 feet from the southerly margin of said 16 foot roadway; thence along said Lemon Road, south 45 °49', 234 feet, more or less, to an intersection with a line which is parallel to the south line of said Donation Land Claim extending we terly from the point of begin- ning; thence easterly along said parallel line to the point of beginning; EXCEPT the easterly 60 feet in width heretofore conveyed to King County for road. uirr MRe4'rrarrti • /A 1.441' a4nW.O14.1 rm•_ ti A -r•rL Ol• ii t q� VWTQi. TAN.O.NO • Did. TryJ.OitN• r ow• MEZZANINE. LW../et... LIVE flaw• ew.cor DECK ONE r , . K• r1EZZ/' NINE LEI. LNE DUX Tfi ie.A1- .' u•rt -1 OCNIM • ON.AFrect TYPICAL-45' UNr• - 2 EDAM 'TYPK.JL 'G' UNIT- I emi44 T J1 WULQ nOO USOHO DD M ° WOO C[Ml o DC MC LOPIYEM7 CORPORATION G ATIOt pIEZZANWE LNGL TYPICN. 'IP' UNIT - 2 3PRM CAM o / INC ° ARcHIJTC CTS . CCASULTANTS • PLANNERS CRS ,EMS 100 0.8,11a3bQ11=1©H d OK 0 o Ala o00a ° exisn0R Y10M ] 1J 'w o Z - .us ,CI, W2Ic0J 12^21 ZNINYZZ3L4 V+4Jae I -.I N/► ,7, 'T{)I.U.L Viva; Z - satin ALavxa+w• vhse4 T - LIMA ,M, 9Y71{l� -4720 _ nae.2.1 HNINvzza 4 nana 2NINf21.314 /.norn.a . Hare 1 w44U. .n•• ../.•10M.1. I CIlloati .a 1f/• • •M• O'M.1 L•O1.WI ,'J. •/t• • .1110 M/L C1M IIO .r, i•.N. 01144 M C1•M V wmuwirM1 .1.041 -¢Ls �,n;ap i'( �1. wl,ll,I.IL r' e • E • TU wILA CITY LIMIT, T I N J 1'y M R-P CTY OF TVE(WUJ ANER, RECLUE ST bRD IA3S , _J Y • __ r y 111 f ` . - �{' J ' p�' i� • . L Q �,{ b b , t ° 1 3 61' t \' 0 r • �� 1. 1 � y 1 .® V >> V i° to 1 5 �� .t � 1' Q' /J' N ' ► 1,r c. li �. ✓, t 3 s' Ar 111 '0 • 40 1 \ ..' , 'n) 1 1 II _ - .. j 1 t 12 {s4a V J I. 4 . 979 ' ( i i'0 I. 13 ..n •r d,44 %Z.:1.7;41 1 1 si sT i..,.t `• 0 0 • -- - - I I 1 C :0 :13, • .'d �. 1 r 1 1 � i v : J ' • L J , re i: 1 w 1 in 1 1 . •rrne re ..�r , 1 39iS r ✓rocrtJ e3 SOS d3 y�roe.rc ,✓ a h JI ▪ 4, ,�ror. rt.,;q ;� f�/ G W /tQ 6. l/ r: M2 r o.r. :: r , • : f 0r • A � 4 . ✓f pt. i ... 13 11 •'� I/1 J1 • o "' r 13�,11 u • :I 12 e h �♦ 'fi t,\ t t s • , IF N tea ; ,• , c ,I 144 fa0 Ii 14. �. 1 J.f.J.C• • - :L -.;- - 0.56 Ac 0. 7I Ac. Ito o ALBERT E. DOWSING_ M FOSTER JOE ALIMENT 56 GOLF, • 1 ,. COURSE •...1 1 89s t I 1 . • J • P24 E tU tc) 3.s 1/4; i• • • it NI •• ,11/ ‘‘ - I .)AVII.) H. Wu tit. L)W L3641c 1/S Ar. Sill 01'; I WI lit N HELL N NANt IV IC2 1.14 Ac C ev.1 ILIl .1. C. 1 11 f • IX 13 73 14038 •/.1 r: . • I • • ••• .....1 • 1 /.•:. .•,,s .11 n 4 1 Si 1 12 . :11 1 1 l !?!/ .... e 1 .5 31-1° ''I :4 Iv 444 • %. - Ls' ;41;p 4 1 64 5 I C..t.S 1 I 1 r 1 ru o is • • 1 DONATM,v 12 .11DC IL 13 OC O r. NC 7:: ;;4 3 •4 1 e (% ' c'.. 'roc 0' `1 , / .es , ,, v• 40 STEP NA / 4 .11 9 41 el . 1011i 41` z • t _ -Thrde .. all .1 s l 11 \ lj t. i I. 03 "1, LUTES 8 . . I ON c - v .., 0% ,...11":C T L.04 83 ,... ....\ k's '.1- 3::!S7, 1 tJOC If e3.. 4.• 0 ''s 13 .t.'.. ..brOC.1(3 ,... .11:0 C. rt_ven 105 tti o• ... " ‘ aro(.rtei „flu 3j51 L.- t, t. c. 13 1 -. .. ALBERT E. DOWSING .5,_ O D -, ". 13 1... u ez • t:' I AG u. v .. f. • 7 V .1 0 .....11d1C ( .4 • 11 '• 1 1 0 4•* 13:10a ■ • 1.181 0 * *I N 1.- N - - - - - 7, 44. + - - - C11: -■ " 1 1 I 1 4 1 .. 32 06A Ac 0 .1, 13t 1CS V i • 5 .. .I - • 8 I . . . I • - pia -0 s VACA re misT en __.5 _ ST ZO 'Vtel!...V-7'.7%14.0"W(4.r..U.,;*--.1.1A-W):4.:17:•i5..%.TX-tefailiki%t' a -,..,- IA "L. - •,...- s ' A• • ' • : ; I ‘... ' • I 4.1:' • ,...„ Z N __ __ 47 r-t .,,,, .... ■ _ 40 C4 ./1 4 4 di pc tt to 030 JOE ALIMENT .56 76 AC. I , 02 , A ‘5‘•••1 hi 4 16 GOLF COUPS,' rCM1PANELLA?WAIVER r , ' • ;J.. , „., . 6 - ' 1 g vatri 1 1 , • I ' • 1 li 13111 Is Apor . 1.y, I. Um. 1 111_0 . • „ 5 ::: . .....,...... , , ,‘;n i ■ .1. 1 i;"°-.4... 1 ' .... ' lr! o " ., l i " - ' ' . • • ..qatind _.alltlf. .4. :, ■ • ' — "11111 - - d . • • ..... • , . , ..- , . - " - - . .." - tiC,.. - - - 7'---: a)„. ,..,), 1,. .... i , , ,_:_fro i ll villitiqii ---,„„.......: . . -A .. irr I: 1 ::-. '4,■:■''' .! " . . • -`••"' - l ' - " -. ' , I ti. 11' ,iie - - • :,:i"iolGotP.P-* - .-_.--- - --...„ 'V , .........--. . kr 11111111tlatIlllit ., Y1 ' „ „ •-• ' OMIT Lod I On% , r _ . 16 I .111 MilB11101 — Mir • m• il1M11111 1 _ 1 "111I : '" . • eiinw77: , ;`te." 3 , , , __ ffi1ulflff' _ • 1111 1 19:10r. artligR/R11 IMP 1 11 . 1%11111 1 • '• . - "is • • „a ,„.• .11.101-4-***,,=, • • " . \ - • - " • . ' —4.na=lar I I :41111'111M .141111431211c. Mei 1 . 1 1I!4li II - 1111111111111111111111111Tr1 0 1 2 ( OE CIZ td LZ SZ CZ VZ CZ zzmozmmamm0 .0 04012 -_,J1111119111111111146111111PIRII11,11,41)11W1111111116111411111111111111111111411111111111,11111111,111111111114111111101,1111111 : - • . , 1111111111111111101q 3 4 5 7 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS _CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 113-241-w I f amsymlutew_ mar arsimizioar TEN. VIEW /MU IMF 7:1 ph, ` ems \ � 4111 Mb. ASP ! asi■siiiillk .grZ888M AMMO" Al IMMI r " IIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ff I nn 1P i 3 IIJ I I I f f l lJI l lll I III I I I I I ienumomur OE EL OL LL VL Si K LL LL ,L OZ a, e, u m s, p 'n L, a j Juldoil1Iiuhni1mllpli1npin11111 4pd91nnh41pl 1 111d 1 lu1lalbpdnllipli1I1uhni1ml111111 1 1111 1 l6alVmbm1uldlmllpliuli1mllnu111111W n �tld 20 0, 8 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE T0 THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTI • TOTAL_ uNIT5 = 0I • TOTAL. PrkRIG J = IZ G/L1 • 2E CTI 13LD . . uNORY • •OUTDoo}Z. RP�GRE,A"TION 18 -2b - W • LIVE II'A 13 • • 7PTTIO • • PINE MEZZANINE LEVEL TYPICAL'', ' UNIT- 1 O17RM T(PIGf4L UNIT - 2 I3DRM • — 1111111111j111j111j111Ii P IP O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 O£ Gi OG 62 92 SL YL L2 22 ¢ OE m M a m m a 'c, a a (j . __. 111111111111111110 11111110 11111111111 11I11HVIIN111111114IIIJ111 III11111111111111111I1111111111111J111111111111111I111111111I1111111111111111111 11111111111111611111 • IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO! THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT! j/EzZPcNINE LEV .L TYPICAL 'G UNIT- 1 131DRM , - Td7'.4L - 14o Lb e - r r/4L — 1140 t7 +PECK 3'1 . To?�•J— -' 9 [h + rJfgc MEZZANINE LEVCL T'PIC.•A1- 'D' UNIT - 2 ;3DRM 18.z.. W 13 r TAL. - 11401 + Oecx r o lli j i i i��i i1r]I ; tIIJIII1iIIiII z 7 1 1 111 1 10 1 111 1 111 1 11 % 7 8'. DE Et ox Et Ex Ex fx Ex xx It OZ Et Al n 91 E, a 'Et Et E 01 ..,,,Im 11111 pu b 41116l4@164td1 III! 1hAuli4phig1ipiJ0 i1ug6m�imlm��mno�nphgi�imhiiili �a1T MgE a0N1 a.° � - ..,.,rte • --- � ti 3 0X IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESSt ?' i;? CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT SU - :r I